CargoAdmin, Bureaucrats, Moderators (CommentStreams), fileuploaders, Interface administrators, newuser, Push subscription managers, Suppressors, Administrators
14,662
edits
Environmental Protection Agency: Difference between revisions
m
Text replacement - "George W. Bush" to "George W. Bush"
m (Text replacement - "George W. Bush" to "George W. Bush") |
|||
| Line 152: | Line 152: | ||
===2000s=== | ===2000s=== | ||
President | President George W. Bush appointed [[Christine Todd Whitman]] as EPA administrator in 2001. Whitman was succeeded by [[Mike Leavitt]] in 2003 and [[Stephen L. Johnson (politician, born 1951)|Stephen L. Johnson]] in 2005.<ref name = "EPA admin"/> | ||
In March 2005 nine states (California, New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maine, Connecticut, New Mexico and Vermont) sued the EPA. The EPA's [[Office of Inspector General (United States)|inspector general]] had determined that the EPA's regulation of [[mercury (element)|mercury]] emissions did not follow the Clean Air Act, and that the regulations were influenced by top political appointees.<ref>{{cite news |url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2004/01/31/proposed-mercury-rules-bear-industry-mark/028e1379-0026-4bcb-b7ce-192bbae7b4c6/ |first = Eric |last = Pianin |title = Proposed Mercury Rules Bear Industry Mark |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20191229021711/https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2004/01/31/proposed-mercury-rules-bear-industry-mark/028e1379-0026-4bcb-b7ce-192bbae7b4c6/ |archive-date = December 29, 2019 |date = January 31, 2004 |url-access = limited |newspaper = The Washington Post |access-date = July 21, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |first = Shankar |last = Vedantam |url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61762-2005Feb3.html |title = EPA Inspector Finds Mercury Proposal Tainted|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20200527092803/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61762-2005Feb3.html|archive-date = May 27, 2020 |newspaper = The Washington Post |date = February 4, 2005 |access-date = July 21, 2020}}</ref> The EPA had suppressed a study it commissioned by [[Harvard University]] which contradicted its position on mercury controls.<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55268-2005Mar21.html New EPA Mercury Rule Omits Conflicting Data] {{Webarchive|url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170106132433/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55268-2005Mar21.html |date = January 6, 2017 }}, ''The Washington Post'', March 22, 2005</ref> The suit alleged that the EPA's rule exempting coal-fired power plants from "maximum available control technology" was illegal, and additionally charged that the EPA's system of [[cap-and-trade]] to lower average mercury levels would allow power plants to forego reducing mercury emissions, which they objected would lead to dangerous local hotspots of mercury contamination even if average levels declined.<ref name = "Bustillo2005">Bustillo, Miguel.[https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2005-mar-30-me-mercury30-story.html States Sue EPA Over Mercury Emissions], ''Los Angeles Times'', March 30, 2005</ref> Several states also began to enact their own mercury emission regulations. Illinois's proposed rule would have reduced mercury emissions from power plants by an average of 90% by 2009.<ref>[http://www.epa.state.il.us/environmental-progress/v32/n1/environmental-progress.pdf Governor Blagojevich and Illinois EPA Propose Aggressive Mercury Controls For Illinois Power Plants] {{Webarchive|url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070710021724/http://www.epa.state.il.us/environmental-progress/v32/n1/environmental-progress.pdf |date = July 10, 2007 }}, ''Environmental Progress'', Spring 2006, page 12</ref> In 2008—by which point a total of fourteen states had joined the suit—the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the EPA regulations violated the Clean Air Act.<ref name = "Baltimore2008">{{cite news |last1 = Baltimore |first1 = Chris |title = EPA must rewrite utility mercury rule: U.S. court |url = https://www.reuters.com/article/environment-usa-utilities-mercury-dc-idUSN0847678520080208 |access-date = February 1, 2017 |work = Reuters |date = February 8, 2008 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20180322204634/https://www.reuters.com/article/environment-usa-utilities-mercury-dc-idUSN0847678520080208 |archive-date = March 22, 2018 |url-status = live}}</ref> In response, EPA announced plans to propose such standards to replace the vacated Clean Air Mercury Rule, and did so on March 16, 2011.<ref name = "EPA_MATS2011">{{cite web |title = History of the MATS Regulation |url = https://www.epa.gov/mats/history-mats-regulation |publisher = EPA |access-date = February 1, 2017|date = November 11, 2015 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170202092159/https://www.epa.gov/mats/history-mats-regulation|archive-date = February 2, 2017 |url-status = live}}</ref> | In March 2005 nine states (California, New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maine, Connecticut, New Mexico and Vermont) sued the EPA. The EPA's [[Office of Inspector General (United States)|inspector general]] had determined that the EPA's regulation of [[mercury (element)|mercury]] emissions did not follow the Clean Air Act, and that the regulations were influenced by top political appointees.<ref>{{cite news |url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2004/01/31/proposed-mercury-rules-bear-industry-mark/028e1379-0026-4bcb-b7ce-192bbae7b4c6/ |first = Eric |last = Pianin |title = Proposed Mercury Rules Bear Industry Mark |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20191229021711/https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2004/01/31/proposed-mercury-rules-bear-industry-mark/028e1379-0026-4bcb-b7ce-192bbae7b4c6/ |archive-date = December 29, 2019 |date = January 31, 2004 |url-access = limited |newspaper = The Washington Post |access-date = July 21, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |first = Shankar |last = Vedantam |url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61762-2005Feb3.html |title = EPA Inspector Finds Mercury Proposal Tainted|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20200527092803/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61762-2005Feb3.html|archive-date = May 27, 2020 |newspaper = The Washington Post |date = February 4, 2005 |access-date = July 21, 2020}}</ref> The EPA had suppressed a study it commissioned by [[Harvard University]] which contradicted its position on mercury controls.<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55268-2005Mar21.html New EPA Mercury Rule Omits Conflicting Data] {{Webarchive|url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170106132433/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55268-2005Mar21.html |date = January 6, 2017 }}, ''The Washington Post'', March 22, 2005</ref> The suit alleged that the EPA's rule exempting coal-fired power plants from "maximum available control technology" was illegal, and additionally charged that the EPA's system of [[cap-and-trade]] to lower average mercury levels would allow power plants to forego reducing mercury emissions, which they objected would lead to dangerous local hotspots of mercury contamination even if average levels declined.<ref name = "Bustillo2005">Bustillo, Miguel.[https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2005-mar-30-me-mercury30-story.html States Sue EPA Over Mercury Emissions], ''Los Angeles Times'', March 30, 2005</ref> Several states also began to enact their own mercury emission regulations. Illinois's proposed rule would have reduced mercury emissions from power plants by an average of 90% by 2009.<ref>[http://www.epa.state.il.us/environmental-progress/v32/n1/environmental-progress.pdf Governor Blagojevich and Illinois EPA Propose Aggressive Mercury Controls For Illinois Power Plants] {{Webarchive|url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070710021724/http://www.epa.state.il.us/environmental-progress/v32/n1/environmental-progress.pdf |date = July 10, 2007 }}, ''Environmental Progress'', Spring 2006, page 12</ref> In 2008—by which point a total of fourteen states had joined the suit—the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the EPA regulations violated the Clean Air Act.<ref name = "Baltimore2008">{{cite news |last1 = Baltimore |first1 = Chris |title = EPA must rewrite utility mercury rule: U.S. court |url = https://www.reuters.com/article/environment-usa-utilities-mercury-dc-idUSN0847678520080208 |access-date = February 1, 2017 |work = Reuters |date = February 8, 2008 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20180322204634/https://www.reuters.com/article/environment-usa-utilities-mercury-dc-idUSN0847678520080208 |archive-date = March 22, 2018 |url-status = live}}</ref> In response, EPA announced plans to propose such standards to replace the vacated Clean Air Mercury Rule, and did so on March 16, 2011.<ref name = "EPA_MATS2011">{{cite web |title = History of the MATS Regulation |url = https://www.epa.gov/mats/history-mats-regulation |publisher = EPA |access-date = February 1, 2017|date = November 11, 2015 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170202092159/https://www.epa.gov/mats/history-mats-regulation|archive-date = February 2, 2017 |url-status = live}}</ref> | ||